CTFR 18/697,636 CTFR 94612 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed March 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a) (1 ) as being anticipated by Hessenbruch (DE2515835, English translation provided) . Regarding claim 1 , Hessenbruch discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a connecting tube assembly for an extruder, comprising a connecting tube (e.g., item 1 in Fig. 1 (page 2, line 45 (i.e., the filling pipe))), wherein the connecting tube is configured for connecting to a dosing conveyor device and a side feed of the extruder, wherein the connecting tube defines a longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig. 1), and a drive device (e.g., items 4, 5 in Fig. 1 (page 2, lines 52-57)), wherein the drive device is configured for rotating the connecting tube about the longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2 , Hessenbruch discloses that, the connecting tube has a circular cross section (i.e., it is noticed that, the base circle diameter of the cone must not be larger than the inner diameter of the pipe 9 (page 3, lines 78-81); The clamping screw 10 is screwed into the pipe 9 through an elongated hole located on the circumference of the filling tube 1 (i.e., the connecting tube), parallel to the tube’s rotation axis (page 4, lines 96-100)). Regarding claims 6, 10 , Hessenbruch discloses that, the filling pipe 1 is driven by the drive unit 5, which consists, for example, of a continuously variable speed electric motor (related to claim 10 ) with a pulley and a drive belt 4 (page 2, lines 52-55). Regarding claims 7, 8, Hessenbruch discloses that, the filling pipe 1 is driven by the drive unit 5, which consists, for example, of a continuously variable speed electric motor with a pulley and a drive belt 4 (page 2, lines 52-55). Here, the drive belt 4 is connected rotatably with the output wheel on the outer surface of the connecting tube and the drive wheel on the motor . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessenbruch (DE2515835, English translation provided) as applied to claims 1, 7 above, further in view of Martin et al. (US 7,954,991) . Regarding claims 3, 4 , Hessenbruch does not explicitly disclose the connecting tube has a length which is greater by at least a factor of 5 than a diameter of the connecting tube. In the same field of endeavor, plunger feeder, Martin discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, plunger feeder 3 has an elongated, upwardly biased plunger housing 21 and a plunger 23 positioned in the plunger housing 21 (col. 5, lines 65-67). Here, the plunger housing 21 is considered as the connecting tube. Martin discloses that, the plunger drive mechanism is an AC or DC gear motor 29 with a timing belt 33 in cabinet 27. There is also a control means 35 connected to the motor 29 to turn it off and on and to vary its rotational speed (col. 6, lines 4-8). In Examples 1 and 2 (col. 6, lines 63-67 and col. 7, lines 1-52), Martin discloses that, the total plunger travel is about 150 mm. The tube I.D. is about 30 mm (col. 7, lines 17-18). Thus, Martin discloses that, the length of the connecting tube is about 5 times longer than the diameter of the connecting tube (overlapping the claimed range of the connecting tube having a length which is greater by at least a factor of 5 than a diameter of the connecting tube). Martin discloses that, the entire feeder chassis is made of aluminum (col. 7, lines 41-42) (related to claim 4 ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hessenbruch to incorporate the teachings of Martin to provide the connecting (aluminum) tube having a length which is greater by at least a factor of 5 than a diameter of the connecting (aluminum) tube. Doing so would be possible to achieve accurate feed rate, as recognized by Martin (col. 1, lines 7-15). For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Martin et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 5 , Hessenbruch discloses that, the filling pipe 1 is rotatably mounted in the bearing 8 (page 2, lines 45-46). Hessenbruch discloses that, the filling pipe 1 is driven by the drive unit 5, which consists, for example, of a continuously variable speed electric motor with a pulley and a drive belt 4 (page 2, lines 52-55). However, Hessenbruch does not explicitly disclose that, the drive device is configured for turning the connection tube at from 0.5 rpm to 20 rpm. Martin discloses that, the gearmotor is running at maximum 4.5 rpm (col. 7, lines 12-14) (in the claimed range of 0.5 rpm to 20 rpm). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hessenbruch to incorporate the teachings of Martin to provide the drive device is configured for turning the connection tube at from 0.5 rpm to 20 rpm. Doing so would be possible to achieve accurate feed rate, as recognized by Martin (col. 1, lines 7-15). For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Martin et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 9 , Hessenbruch does not explicitly disclose a housing to surround the output wheel and the drive wheel. As illustrated in Fig. 2, Martin discloses that, the AC or DC gear motor 29 with a timing belt 33 is covered by the cabinet 27 (i.e., the housing) (col. 6, lines 5-6). It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Hessenbruch to have the drive mechanism as Martin teaches that it is known to have the housing to cover the drive mechanism. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Response to Arguments 07-37 Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments in claim 1 that the base reference Hessenbruch is provided with the filling tube connected to the main feed port rather than to a side feed, it is not persuasive. As illustrated in Fig. 1 or 2 of the teachings of Hessenbruch, raw materials are feeding into the extruder through its side-feed port. This process can be considered as providing the side feed of the extruder. The connecting portion between the filling tube and the side-feed port is necessary for realizing the feeding purpose. Regarding arguments that Martin is not applied in a manner sufficient to rectify the deficiency in Hessenbruch, it is not persuasive. Actually, as illustrated in Fig. 1 of the teachings of Martin, through the plunger housing 21, materials are feeding into the extruder through the feed outlet 31. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 3 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 4 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 5 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 6 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 7 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 8 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/697,636 Page 9 Art Unit: 1741
Prosecution Insights